The Schenectady Massacre (of the facts)

If you have been following the controversy in Schenectady’s Stockade lately you have to admit it has been a blast. To catch up, the city wants to build a dock at Riverside Park for boaters to stop by and enjoy the Stockade area of the city. There are those that oppose it and those that favor it. The Onrust, the 17th century Dutch Yacht that was built not far from there, has been thrown in the mix because it would like to dock there during times when it is not educating young people.

Now mind you a dock was already proposed and accepted a while back in the northern park of the Stockade but that project fell through. When The Onrust Project talked to the city officials about having a berth in the Stockade, they were quite agreeable. Since the ability to use the Onrust as an in kind match was allowed by State officials the city and its taxpayers would be saved $150,000 in cost of construction, not to mention a great spot for the Dutch ship. Who would have guessed that people would be against saving $150,000 and a dock that might allow a few people with money to stop by and spend some of that money in the city.

The arguments against the dock have been all over the place. One person said that the park is a tranquil place – you know a great place to relax – and in the same breath said it was a haven for prostitutes and druggies. Another argument is that it will bring drunks, water jets, and other bad elements to the park? Not sure the logic is with that one since those same people (boaters, ski jets, etc.) don’t seem to perform nefarious things just a few yards north of there at the public boat launch or dock at the Lighthouse in Scotia/Glenville, or even the County dock on the other side of the Stockade. Not sure why Riverside would attract them but I guess the Stockaders know better than I. I would like to see the statistics on this though?

The other argument is that it will cause a traffic mess. I think that refers to the Onrust. They don’t mention the fact that the yearly Art show, running marathon, and Walkabout that bring in thousands each year seems to work just fine. The Onrust might bring in a handful of people in a day. With the mast down you can’t put more than a hand full of people on the boat. One Stockade event takes in thousands of people in one day. The other argument is since the original Onrust was not built on the Mohawk, the replica shouldn’t be. Of course that is just the ignorance of the person stating it since (s)he obviously has no idea what the Onrust is about, nor knowledge of Dutch history.

The opposition also argue that the Stockade should stay the way it is. Geez, I hope not. Naturally that argument is ridiculous since I’m not sure what “stay the way it is” even means. The Stockade has evolved over the last 382 years and will continue to do so. There isn’t one building that is standing that hasn’t been modified one way or the other over the last three centuries. There is no consistency anywhere in the Stockade. Walk down Front Street. One sidewalk is cement, a few feet down is asphalt, another few feet is slate. And if you don’t trip over most of them from the roots of the trees that are protruding – forcing parts of the walk into the air – you have to side step the dog poop – at least I think it is dog poop. Most of the single family homes have been broken into several apartments. There is your parking problem – 5 or 6 cars per house. That’s not what I call caring for your historic neighborhood.

I would bet if you gave a “History of the Stockade” test to most of these people living there they would flunk badly. But hey, that is not to say that they don’t have the right to oppose the dock. There is nothing wrong with not wanting it, but just say you don’t want it. Making up ridiculous reasons just makes them look silly. One real estate person tried to state that if I was still living in Albany I wouldn’t even be talking about berthing the boat in Schenectady. Of course this kind of stupidty, well actually ignorance, seriously damages the person’s argument. He proves he knows nothing about the mission of the ship, knows nothing about me, and by making such statements looses any credibility he might have had. By the way, we were going to build the ship in Albany – didn’t work out.

Here are the facts!

The Stockade waterfront has been an active waterfront with docks, wharves, warehouses, boat builders, boat houses, and even an ice house for the last three centuries. The Park was officially created on December 28, 1914. The Park only ceased to be an active boat site during the 1950s. The Park has never been “tranquil” and has been an active park with boaters and docks only until relatively recent times.

The earliest known structure in the “park” was John Glen’s brewery – that’s right a beer joint – in 1698, eight years after the massacre. It was located north of Washington Ave and south of Church Street.

The Glen Brewery in 1698 in what is now Riverside Park. Portion of the Wolfgang Romer map.

When Schenectady became an important boat building center in the 18th century, a florishing boat building industry grew up along the waterfront from an area near the community college along the Binnekill all the way up to North Ferry and later beyond that. In fact, they built a special version of the “Durham Boat” (the ones Washington used crossing the Delaware) called “The Schenectady Boat.” It was used to carry cargo and this part of the riverfront was the beginning of the Western Inland Lock Navigation Company, a precursor of the Erie Canal created by Philip Schuyler. It was also used when the original Erie Canal was built but due to floods was moved up to the Erie Blvd section of today. There are remnants of the original canal off Cucumber Alley according to the late historian Bill Massoth. If that had stayed canal, there would be no Stockade as we know it today.

Prepared from eyewitness observations in 1807, this engraving shows a river freighter passing through one of Schuyler's wing dams in the Mohawk while a large batteau waits its turn. Source: NYS Museum.

For 80 years (1740-1820) Schenectadians built many river batteaux that lined the Mohawk, ferrying goods, troops, supplies and settlers. The larger Schenectady Boat gave Schenectady an economic advantage over other areas as these boats could carry more cargo that normal sized batteaux.

Same view as above but the Binnekill has been filled in making Van Slyke Island now part of the mainland. SCCC is now in this location. Photo by Don Rittner.

This part of “downtown” Schenectady burned in 1819 and forever changed the course of the Stockade. The fire burned up to Union and wiped out 169 buildings and displaced over 200 people. Both sides of Front Street from Washington to Governors’ Lane, on the north side, and to the storehouse of Jeremiah Fuller on the south side were laid to ashes. The heroic efforts of many Union College students forming water lines helped quell the fire and saved several homes.

Fletcher Joyner built ice racers at the bottom of Governor's Lane in 1898. Source: Don Rittner

Businesses along the riverfront, now park, had to deal with the annual problem of ice flow during the winter. These buildings were located near Governor's Lane. Source: Don Rittner.

For many years you could take a ferry across the river from the foot of Governor's Lane. Source: Don Rittner.

The intent of the city was to rebuild in the same location but at the same time of the fire the new Erie Canal was being built just a few hundred yards east of the area and so the business community decided to rebuild along this new economic corridor. It is for this reason that the Stockade remains the residential neighborhood it is today.

Newspaper article on November 27, 1819 from eyewitness of Schenectady's fire.

Riverside Park was approved on December 11, 1913 and was purchased in piecemeal fashion until December 28, 1914 when the city officially accepted the name Riverside Park by resolution. There may have been some land additions or subtractions during the 1920s. The park originally extended up to the railroad bridge. A narrow strip of land of about 1/3 mile long, the park is accessible from five narrow residential streets. Currently there are tennis courts, basketball court, volleyball and a small, children’s playground.

1928 Randall Map showing the original limits of Riverside Park north to the RR Bridge.

1892 map showing Proper's Ice Houses at the end of North Street.

1905 map showing extensive ice houses and buildings between the RR bridge and North Street.

The creation of the park was a huge hit with Stockade residents and city residents in general. Several of the boat houses lining the park provided boat rentals and events in the park for years. Perhaps one of the most famous was the Yates Boathouse that was located just south of the pump station near North Ferry Street, the site of the proposed new dock.

Some Stockade residents don't want to see this ever happening again - people using boats on the river in the park! The Yates Boat House near N. Ferry. Source: Don Rittner.

The Yates Boat House rented “scows” (heavy boats) for 10 cents an hour. They had a fleet of canoes too. You could rent a “skiff” for 25 cents an hour. The boathouse also had a dance floor above. This boathouse was popular up to the 1920s.

Over the years, most of the buildings in the park burned, were torn down, or destroyed by passing ice in the winters until we ended up with the park as we know it today.

The bottom line though is the park has never been a stagnant tree lined solitude for just Stockade residents as they believe. As you can see in just a few photographs here, Riverside was always a vibrant, ever changing, connection to the river for all Schenectadians and this included boating and docks. Some Stockade residents can object to building a new dock but they better come up with different arguments than it has always been a quiet tranquil setting for Stockade residents. Historically, dear readers, that has been only a temporary condition.

Another view of the Yates Boat House near N. Ferry. Source: Don Rittner.

Yes one more image of the Yates Boat House in case you didn't get the point. Source: Don Rittner.

Oh no!! All these boaters must be making way too much noise for Stockaders during the early 20th century! Source: Don Rittner.

Oh No, docks in the park?? How can that be! Oh, that's right there have always been docks in the area for centuries. Source: Don Rittner

Good thing Charles Steinmetz is not alive today. As shown here he would not be able to park his canoe in the park today. That's where he was headed. Source: Don Rittner.

Another view of those pesty docks at the foot of North Ferry Street. Source: Don Rittner

Lots of boats and a floating dock in the park on June 19 1897.

Here you can many homes and businesses along the area that is now park in this photo taken around the turn of the 20th century. The smoke stack is at the end of N. Ferry Street, site of the proposed new dock. Source: Don Rittner

A close up of the previous image showing several boats at the end of N. Ferry. Source: Don Rittner.

48 Responses

A little less sarcasm and insult would be a preferable approach for a public servant and culture lover, Don. And avoiding the easy “strawman” arguments, with factual distortions of your own, would also help keep the conversation constructive and increase your credibility.

As you surely know, dock opponents do not state that Riverside Park was always tranquil. It has, of course, been rather peaceful for half a century, and clearly has been a passive, quiet park, known for its scenic views and quiet pastimes since the Historic District was created. There are, as you know, quite a few docks around here that can be used by power and non-motor boaters, but you probably can’t name even one green space along a river anywhere in an urban setting in this state — and certainly not within a day trip distance — that has such unobstructed views and daytime tranquility (plus freedom from commercial and industrial noise and blight) as Riverside Park.

It is the kind of recreational and open space that gets special protection in our State’s environmental review laws, and even more protection due to its proximity to both residences and an historic district. People wanting to preserve this unique space — which we have always invited other Schenectadians to share (by land) — deserve a bit more than your insults and condescension.

Of course, you also know that there is no inconsistency between touting Riverside Park’s tranquility during its hours of daytime operation and the claims of neighbors that unlawful activity abounds there at night. Such activity will surely increase with the allure of a dock.

As for traffic and parking, it is not just the Onrust that will increase the neighborhood’s problems. You can expect kayakers, canoeists and similar Park visitors to bring their vessels by car — often small groups of friends, each arriving with his or her own vehicle and watercraft. And, yes, the neighborhood and Park do “handle” significant amounts of traffic and large crowds a few times a year for special events. But, as you also know well, it takes lots of planning, much volunteer work, and the CLOSING DOWN of streets and banning of parking to achieve the good results.

Every full study and report on the Schenectady waterfront has chosen other spots as far more appropriate for a dock, either not even mentioning Riverside Park as a viable alternative, or specifically saying that it should not be further developed. The most recent report is the brand new Mohawk River Waterfront Revitalization Plan for Schenectady
County (March 2010), which concludes (because of its poor access and nearness to homes) that Riverside Park’s “Redevelopment efforts should focus on improving the aesthetics, pedestrian access, and links to other waterfront developments.”

You have been telling everyone — apparently to put pressure on City leaders to continue with the Riverside Park dock and to stoke the bidding wars — that you have lots of other options for home port designation and docking for the Onrust. Given those choices, it is difficult to see why you are so willing to risk this unique gem of a Park.

I hope the politicians are not cowed by the alarm bells being sounded and instead use a little perspective. Thanks for giving us some perspective, Don. It amazes me that some folks are blessed to own waterfront property but are repelled by the idea of actually benefitting from potential access to the water. Boggles the mind.

As I’ve said recently: revive a former docking port!…wonderful idea…our side of the river seems to be only one that doesn’t get development/smart growth principles like the northside of the river…other than revitalizing Riverside Park/Pump House, etc @ end of N Ferry from plans in the 1990s there hasn’t been any real development for boating…it’s only half a year or less that is would be utilized, etc…but, the opportunities for Sch’dy and visitor/tourists are insurmountale!…
GPlante2nDistDems12305

Don,
Finally, you are our best advocate for positive change. No one
could have said it better. I can see bicycle racks and rentals
that will allow visitors to tour even more than the Stockade. I
mean who hasn’t seen some of those beautiful yachts and sailboats
that right now just pass us by.
Thanks,
Beverly

David, I find it ironic that I had to fish your comment out of the TU Spam folder.

>A little less sarcasm and insult would be a preferable approach for a public servant and culture lover, Don. And avoiding the easy “strawman” arguments, with factual distortions of your own, would also help keep the conversation constructive and increase your credibility.

My credibility with intelligent people is impeccable so I am not worried if there are few folks bent out of shape. I have been reading the postings by you and others that are opposed to the dock and since it was your “camp” that started the sarcasm, insults, and made it personal, I am just returning fire. I like sarcasm and have plenty to share.

>As you surely know, dock opponents do not state that Riverside Park was always tranquil. It has, of course, been rather peaceful for half a century, and clearly has been a passive, quiet park, known for its scenic views and quiet pastimes since the Historic District was created. There are, as you know, quite a few docks around here that can be used by power and non-motor boaters, but you probably can’t name even one green space along a river anywhere in an urban setting in this state — and certainly not within a day trip distance — that has such unobstructed views and daytime tranquility (plus freedom from commercial and industrial noise and blight) as Riverside Park.

Well sorry I am not deaf yet. I heard opponents state exactly that the park was always tranquil. Scenic views? I don’t consider a railroad bridge and auto bridge scenic? Maybe historic, but not scenic. Oh yeah, those gigantic electric transmission towers you see when you look towards Scotia. Man, what a picturesque view that is. Very pretty.

Hmm, ok let me think? Daytime Tranquility. Yeah, those Amtrak and CSX Freight trains sure are quiet. And that hum from the Western Gateway bridge is music to my ears.

Ok, now for the green space: I assume you mean the Capital District for starters? Ok, in Schenectady County we have Arrowhead, Kiwanis Park, Mabee Farm, Aquaduct Park, Maalwyck Park, Riverstone Manor, Lock 9 Park. I particulary like Schenectady Yacht club with the beautiful view of the Mohawk Valley geology, and remnants of the Erie Canal; and then there is Henry Hudson Park in Bethlehem not to forget Castleton, or hmm, oh yeah, Athens, Catskill, Nyack, Haverstraw, Roger’s Point, Tarrytown, Cold Spring, Poughkeepsie, Peekskill, Schoharie Crossing, Lock 20, ho hum. That’s enough.

>It is the kind of recreational and open space that gets special protection in our State’s environmental review laws, and even more protection due to its proximity to both residences and an historic district. People wanting to preserve this unique space — which we have always invited other Schenectadians to share (by land) — deserve a bit more than your insults and condescension.

>Of course, you also know that there is no inconsistency between touting Riverside Park’s tranquility during its hours of daytime operation and the claims of neighbors that unlawful activity abounds there at night. Such activity will surely increase with the allure of a dock.

First of all give me a break. The park is not unique space. The Pine Bush is unique space. The Cohoes Falls is unique space. You are talking about a piece of riverfront – riverine sediment -a flood plain – that happen to have had a number of buildings built on it over the last 300 years. You’re talking to someone who has been saving the environment and historic places for 40 years.

See here is where I like to point out the hypocrisy. First of all your facts about all this crime in the park are, well just not factual. Where are your statistics? Show me all the crime that is taking place there? AND if it has been going on what have you done about it? Show me all the letters and meetings with local police you have had say in the last year about what to do to clean it up? You must have been so concerned that you probably already have created a neighborhood watch and patrol it every night. Oh wait, you want to wait until there is a dock there to bring up that issue? I see. Now wait a minute, just a paragraph or two you state the park:

“clearly has been a passive, quiet park, known for its scenic views and quiet pastimes since the Historic District was created.”

The district was created in the 1960s. Well what is it? A passive quiet park with passive pastimes or ridden with “unlawful activity” ???? You claim the allure of the dock will increase what activity? What activity are you referring to? Looking at the boats? More of that undescribed unlawful activity? What unlawful activity – prostitution and drugs? Again where are your statistics. Are there more arrests there than other places in the city for similar crimes? FACTS FACTS FACTS, please! Something no one seems to want to consider is if the park is actually used by others it might deter that so called undesirable element to go elsewhere.

>As for traffic and parking, it is not just the Onrust that will increase the neighborhood’s problems. You can expect kayakers, canoeists and similar Park visitors to bring their vessels by car — often small groups of friends, each arriving with his or her own vehicle >and watercraft. And, yes, the neighborhood and Park do “handle” significant amounts of traffic and large crowds a few times a year for special events. But, as you also know well, it takes lots of planning, much volunteer work, and the CLOSING DOWN of streets and banning of parking to achieve the good results.

Give me a break. If the dock is 150 or 200 feet who are you kidding. If the Onrust docks there, there goes 75 feet. There isn’t going to be the kind of volume you are talking about and you know it.

>Every full study and report on the Schenectady waterfront has chosen other spots as far more appropriate for a dock, either not even mentioning Riverside Park as a viable alternative, or specifically saying that it should not be further developed. The most recent report is the brand new Mohawk River Waterfront Revitalization Plan for Schenectady County (March 2010), which concludes (because of its poor access and nearness to homes) that Riverside Park’s “Redevelopment efforts should focus on improving the aesthetics, pedestrian access, and links to other waterfront developments.”

Good, a dock will link to other waterfront development such as Scotia’s Freedom Park and Maalwyck Park.

>You have been telling everyone — apparently to put pressure on City leaders to continue with the Riverside Park dock and to stoke the bidding wars — that you have lots of other options for home port designation and docking for the Onrust. Given those choices, it is difficult to see why you are so willing to risk this unique gem of a Park.

I was willing to give you some leeway with your argument until the last paragraph. And here in is why you and your opposition folks have no credibility with me. Name one person that I have told to pressure the city? Tell me one (and you can do it in private email if you want). That statement is such an outright lie that I’m publically calling you on it. You either made it up or someone told you that but either way you need to own up to it because you and or whoever created it out of thin air. Prove it. What the hell are you talking about? So I’m calling you a liar. Prove I’m wrong. Oh and just for the public record, I have been advocating that the Onrust can go anywhere. We are not married to Schenectady or anywhere else.

Stoke what bidding war. Bidding war for what? You obviously know nothing about the issue. You were doing somewhat fine until the last paragraph.

Again I will restate my position. If you are against a dock in the park, fine, just say you are against it. And there are legitimate reasons to be against it. It might just as well change the character of the park. It might bring the park back to life like it was for most of its existence. It might bring in “strangers” and we all know what that means. It might encourage people from other parts of the world to stop by with their boats, stroll down the Stockade. and learn something about the Dutch contribution to American history. They may even spend money here. They may even consider making the city their home by being exposed to all that makes Schenectady one of the best cities in America. Wow, we certainly don’t want any of that.

Thanks for putting my comment up; I stopped looking for it six hours after I wrote it, and am glad you finally approve it. Just a few quick replies:

You lump me in with other opponents, but I would like you to point to one uncivil thing I have said — at my Stockade photo weblogn “suns along the Mohawk,” in the Historic Stockade email forum, or my Gazette OpEd piece, or anywhere else. I have never condoned nastiness or name-calling on this or any other issue (for example, see the 2500 postings at my weblog f/k/a, with its 4600 comments, and a million visits – http://tinyurl.com/DAGpundit ). My clear recollection is that it was your camp that started with the insults (Rob Gavel’s gratuitous message to the Historic Stockade Yahoo list, mocking all opponents as anti-progress and chicken-littles, was the very first item of that tenor I saw). From the start, I have called for civility. Why a man of your stature has to stoop to this sort of attack is beyond my understanding.

You know that the Waterfront Revitalization plan strongly advises against doing anything but enhancing the Park’s use for quiet viewing and pedestrian and bike use. It appears you have no argument against the Plan’s conclusions. The “links” recommendation in the Plan refers to physically linking walking and bike trails. When you have no answers, you love to use glib, throw-away lines, and broad personal attacks. It would be fun watching a good lawyer cross-examining you, Mr. Rittner.

Yes, Riverside Park — with its urban location so close to a residential neighborhood, rather than commercial or industrial uses — is special and unique. A train a couple times a day crossing the CSX trestle does not ruin that tranquilty. You list some nice spots, but they do not offer the many advantages found at Riverside Park.

No matter how many times you protest, I continue to believe that there is no inconsistency between our saying that the Park is peaceful during the day but has criminal activity at night. Please ask the Schenectady Police officers who patrol the park and neighborhood what they think a dock would mean for the Park (as they work for the City, you might want to promise not to tell their bosses their responses). And, talk to the folks who regularly clean up the needles and condemns in the Park in the morning.

Finally, it is difficult for me to believe that you are making such a big thing about the clause “— apparently to put pressure on City leaders to continue with the Riverside Park dock and to stoke the bidding wars —”. The word “apparently” should be your clue that I was speculating on the sudden stream of information coming from you about other options for the Onrust, at the same time as so heatedly and desperately attacking the opponents of the dock. Calling me a liar is a bit strange, since I do not say you pressured anyone, nor directly asked other locales to compete with better offers — you would not have to do so, once making the statements in public. Talk about protesting too much.

With all your Onrust options, it is indeed difficult to understand why you are so willing to risk this unique gem of a Park, while also risking your “impeccable” reputation with your angry, indiscriminate attacks.

>Thanks for putting my comment up; I stopped looking for it six hours after I wrote it, and am glad you finally approve it. Just a few quick replies:

I put all comments up but I don’t sit there waiting for them.

>You lump me in with other opponents, but I would like you to point to one uncivil thing I have said — at my Stockade photo weblogn “suns along the Mohawk,” in the Historic Stockade email forum, or my Gazette OpEd piece, or anywhere else. I have never condoned nastiness or name-calling on this or any other issue (for example, see the 2500 postings at my weblog f/k/a, with its 4600 comments, and a million visits – http://tinyurl.com/DAGpundit ). My clear recollection is that it was your camp that started with the insults (Rob Gavel’s gratuitous message to the Historic Stockade Yahoo list, mocking all opponents as anti-progress and chicken-littles, was the very first item of that tenor I saw). From the start, I have called for civility. Why a man of your stature has to stoop to this sort of attack is beyond my understanding.

David, first of all I belong to no camp. I do not belong to the pro dock camp nor the anti dock camp. In fact I am not involved in this whole issue other than I made a request to the city to let us dock the Onrust in the Stockade. You guys have brought me into this and you should be careful what you wish for. The warring factions in the Stockade have been warring for years. This little episode is just one more continuation of it. Please leave me out of it. I have been trying to show what the facts are regarding this park and in particular the history of the park. I could care less about the Hatfields and the McCoys of the Stockade. I don’t care who doesn’t like who in the Stockade. Many of you are behaving like children. I do not know you. I have never met you and my comments are not directed at anyone personal. I state my case with facts. You can try and deviate around them but the facts are just that, the facts.

>You know that the Waterfront Revitalization plan strongly advises against doing anything but enhancing the Park’s use for quiet viewing and pedestrian and bike use. It appears you have no argument against the Plan’s conclusions. The “links” recommendation in the Plan refers to physically linking walking and bike trails. When you have no answers, you love to use glib, throw-away lines, and broad personal attacks. It would be fun watching a good lawyer cross-examining you, Mr. Rittner.

David, do you know how many “plans” have been written?

>Yes, Riverside Park — with its urban location so close to a residential neighborhood, rather than commercial or industrial uses — is special and unique. A train a couple times a day crossing the CSX trestle does not ruin that tranquilty. You list some nice spots, but they do not offer the many advantages found at Riverside Park.

That is your opinion not fact. You need to get out more. I think Riverside Park is great but it is not unique in any way – sorry. I would grant it probably is special to those that use it and it should be. It’s a nice park.

>No matter how many times you protest, I continue to believe that there is no inconsistency between our saying that the Park is peaceful during the day but has criminal activity at night. Please ask the Schenectady Police officers who patrol the park and neighborhood what they think a dock would mean for the Park (as they work for the City, you might want to promise not to tell their bosses their responses). And, talk to the folks who regularly clean up the needles and condemns in the Park in the morning.

I’m not the one protesting. Well then I guess the police are not doing their job. You should take that up with the commissioner. What are you going to do about the druggies selling their wares under your noses in the apartments in the Stockade? I would worry more about your streets than the river front.

>Finally, it is difficult for me to believe that you are making such a big thing about the clause “— apparently to put pressure on City leaders to continue with the Riverside Park dock and to stoke the bidding wars —”. The word “apparently” should be your clue that I was speculating on the sudden stream of information coming from you about other options for the Onrust, at the same time as so heatedly and desperately attacking the opponents of the dock. Calling me a liar is a bit strange, since I do not say you pressured anyone, nor directly asked other locales to compete with better offers — you would not have to do so, once making the statements in public. Talk about protesting too much.
With all your Onrust options, it is indeed difficult to understand why you are so willing to risk this unique gem of a Park, while also risking your “impeccable” reputation with your angry, indiscriminate attacks.

You must be a lawyer. You use their circular logic. The fact that you think there has been a sudden stream of information from me shows your lack of knowledge regarding this whole project. I have been talking publicly about our “options” for two years. I give hundreds of talks every year and our mission is well known. We have been working on the Onrust for five years. Where have you been? The fact that you don’t know about it is your problem, not mine. And I’m not angry at all. I enjoy this.

Wow. Being a long time boater and Schenectadian, I am amazed at the verbal gymnastics that I’m reading here.

All of Schenectady, including the Stockade belongs to the city, the residents and the taxpayers. What I’m getting from the people opposed to the dock, is that they want the park only for themselves.

And while they have their concerns regarding crime etcetera, even one who was worried that the cops may have to get out of their cars they should understand that they don’t personally “own” the park just as they don’t personally “own” the streets in front of their homes. Its public space.

I think Schenectady would benefit. The whole city. There are docks along the river in other communities. While traveling it was nice to get off the boat and run to a Stewarts or other small grocery for supplies and even to stretch your legs. But there aren’t any close convenience stores on the Stockade side so Don, you should look into the Scotia side. There is a Stewarts easily within walking distance.

Stockaders are appearing more like snobs than good neighbors and that’s too bad. I think they’re tending to want to become a “gated” community and that’s fine too. They should look into breaking away from the city and becoming their own little fort again. They have a good start already with the gates on Erie Blvd.

Pat, considering that the Stockade was originally the first “gated” community in the area you could be right. Arthur’s is just up from N. Ferry so just a few minutes walk from the dock if they put it there. Arthur’s could do well I think by selling the things that cater to the boating community. They could have tour maps and rent bicycles so people could explore the Stockade and city. However, as you said it seems they do not want anyone strolling around “their” Stockade.

Great blog! I love reading it and seeing all the old pics. The Onrust is an amazing project. You and your team are my heroes. Can’t wait to walk down the street and see it…. maybe even volunteer to help maintain it(no promises, gotta finish fixing the old house we bought in the neighborhood first:)

Additionally, as a side note, I grew up on the water paddling my kayak every summer when I was a kid. Having easy access to the water again would be so much fun and again just right down the street!

And holy cow I had no idea the earliest known structure was a Brewery. We need to bring it back too… so that they can host with the Van Dyke a Beer of the Netherlands festival every spring.

As I said on Sunday, loved your article. Especially the pictures. I’ve only lived in the Stockade for four years. Someone mentioned at the meeting on the 22nd that most of the pro dock people were new comers and really didn’t understand the historic significance of the neighborhood and our personal responsibilities to protect it.
Why does wanting a dock in the park make me a bad person? No one actually said I was a bad person but clearly I didn’t understand the historic significance of the neighborhood and the park. It’s really sad that the prospect of having a dock in the park has turned into
Right/Wrong or Good/Bad issue. It isn’t a moral issue no matter how much people try to make it out to be. Abortion, the war in Iraq, Healthcare, now there are some important moral issues. I can see protesting and lecturing about these issues. But not a dock. Some people would like a dock in the park and some people don’t. It is simply two different opinions. That’s allowed in this country. There were very few of us pro dock people who spoke at the City Council meetings over the past few weeks. Not because we didn’t want to be heard but because the response from the anti dock people (not all of them) was so emotional and dramatic and angry that I didn’t want to insight them. There is no reason I had to explain myself or justify my position because I would like a dock in riverside park!
Earlier on your blog someone stated “Stockaders are appearing more like snobs than good neighbors and that’s too bad”. That is the real downside to all this drama. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Thanks for your continued effort.
Karen

This is the 1st time I have ever posted on a forum of this sort, that should show the level of my concern. Don, if you would like to meet an entire street of homeowners (We live on North Street)who are against this project, come on over. I will be happy to give you the guided tour of the “tourist attractions” & “places to resupply their boats” in walking distance. You mentioned the tennis & basketball courts, we should definitely make those stellar facilities are a stop. I’m sure no one would mind a 2 mile hike to see the planetarium show @ the Schenectady Museum or eat @ the venerable pizza/sub/burrito establishments downtown. We can sit outside & view the time honored traditions of prostitution & vandalism along the waterfront(I’ll be happy to share photos of my wife’s street rod that was “tagged”). Then we can walk along our quaint streets, designed & intended for human & horse traffic. they haven’t been updated to handle the avg automobile, much less the school bus, SUV, moving van, & large work trucks that illegally speed through our neighborhood, or just block the streets. This is all assuming that you don’t fall & break a limb on the well maintained sidewalks that abound in this jewel of a gated community.

The idea of the Riverfront being a vibrant, living entity with a thriving mix of retail, service, entertainment & residential is a dream. Now it’s time to wake up! The Stockade has cramped, narrow streets/sidewalks in poor repair(but we do have beautiful granite curbs), no viable retail shops/market, predominantly limited menu restaurants, poor police presence, substandard drainage, & an aging demographic desperately trying to retain control. I agree w/you that in the past, the Stockade riverfront was bustling w/activity. As an historian/researcher/re-enactor, I applaud your efforts in raising the awareness of Schenectady’s past; but time has marched on & much of the past is looked on w/rose colored glasses including an idyllic riverside dock.

On top of these & many other misgivings I have, the main 1 is the $$$$$. This magic money that comes from the government. No city money involved, it’s a free project, it won’t cost us a cent, it must be great! We have to spend it or they take it away! Has anyone stopped to think where that money comes from? Maybe it was somebody’s taxes? When will the “WE HAVE TO SPEND OR SOMEONE ELSE WILL GET OUR FAIR SHARE TOO!” mentality be put to rest, in favor of economically responsible actions. I understand that local & state politicians can’t put their name on a sign reading “we were fiscally responsible & didn’t throw away money on the project you can’t see here”; but I think it’s about time. Maybe now it’s time to stop the tail from wagging the dog.

>This is the 1st time I have ever posted on a forum of this sort, that should show the level of my concern. Don, if you would like to meet an entire street of homeowners (We live on North Street)who are against this project, come on over. I will be happy to give you the guided tour of the “tourist attractions” & “places to resupply their boats” in walking distance. You mentioned the tennis & basketball courts, we should definitely make those stellar facilities are a stop. I’m sure no one would mind a 2 mile hike to see the planetarium show @ the Schenectady Museum or eat @ the venerable pizza/sub/burrito establishments downtown. We can sit outside & view the time honored traditions of prostitution & vandalism along the waterfront(I’ll be happy to share photos of my wife’s street rod that was “tagged”). Then we can walk along our quaint streets, designed & intended for human & horse traffic. they haven’t been updated to handle the avg automobile, much less the school bus, SUV, moving van, & large work trucks that illegally speed through our neighborhood, or just block the streets. This is all assuming that you don’t fall & break a limb on the well maintained sidewalks that abound in this jewel of a gated community.

Hello Andre. Good for you to put in your two cents. Yes, the tennis courts, etc. should be improved. You are probably working on getting a team to write some grants to do that right? Let me suggest contacting KABOOM. It is an organization that builds playgrounds for free, they usually get a sponsor. In terms of the tour to the museum. The museum if you remember is moving to the old armory which is only a few minutes from the river, so when that is completed it will be a great tour – glad you pointed that out.

Yes the streets are very clogged in the Stockade, but why? Because you have single family homes converted to apartments. Take one house that has been converted to three apartments. Let’s assume each apartment is rented with three couples. Three couples makes six people. Six people have six cars all wanting to park in front of a house that was originally built for one family. Hmm, I see a problem here, don’t you? And boy did you hit the nail on the head with the sidewalks. I do believe that the sidewalks are the responsibility of each homeowner. Amazing on how many of them so concerned about the riverfront but cannot maintain their own sidewalks where if people fall and get hurt can sue their ass off (maybe you should remind people of that).

>The idea of the Riverfront being a vibrant, living entity with a thriving mix of retail, service, entertainment & residential is a dream. Now it’s time to wake up! The Stockade has cramped, narrow streets/sidewalks in poor repair(but we do have beautiful granite curbs), no viable retail shops/market, predominantly limited menu restaurants, poor police presence, substandard drainage, & an aging demographic desperately trying to retain control. I agree w/you that in the past, the Stockade riverfront was bustling w/activity. As an historian/researcher/re-enactor, I applaud your efforts in raising the awareness of Schenectady’s past; but time has marched on & much of the past is looked on w/rose colored glasses including an idyllic riverside dock.

But Andre, everything you mention there can be changed. In case you don’t know the city is now looking into redoing the lower State Street block down to the river. They have accomplished the upper State Street block and are now looking towards your area. What that means is a redevelopment in the lower State Street area will bring in new commercial possibilities that can tie into the riverfront. I do agree that we need to do something about the police presence. It certainly seems like it is not working too well. Perhaps a neighborhood watch? How about cameras in the park like they have in Vale Park?

>On top of these & many other misgivings I have, the main 1 is the $$$$$. This magic money that comes from the government. No city money involved, it’s a free project, it won’t cost us a cent, it must be great! We have to spend it or they take it away! Has anyone stopped to think where that money comes from? Maybe it was somebody’s taxes? When will the “WE HAVE TO SPEND OR SOMEONE ELSE WILL GET OUR FAIR SHARE TOO!” mentality be put to rest, in favor of economically responsible actions. I understand that local & state politicians can’t put their name on a sign reading “we were fiscally responsible & didn’t throw away money on the project you can’t see here”; but I think it’s about time. Maybe now it’s time to stop the tail from wagging the dog.

Well the dock project is free a good portion of it anyway. Using the Onrust as a match saves the city $150,000. The sweat and labor of our Onrust volunteers has donated that. There are many grants available for those that take the time to seek them and write them. Perhaps the Stockaders can form a committee and look into that?

>As I said on Sunday, loved your article. Especially the pictures. I’ve only lived in the Stockade for four years. Someone mentioned at the meeting on the 22nd that most of the pro dock people were new comers and really didn’t understand the historic significance of the neighborhood and our personal responsibilities to protect it.

Karen, most of those old timers don’t know the historical significance of the park either which is why I wrote my piece.

>Why does wanting a dock in the park make me a bad person? No one actually said I was a bad person but clearly I didn’t understand the historic significance of the neighborhood and the park. It’s really sad that the prospect of having a dock in the park has turned into
Right/Wrong or Good/Bad issue. It isn’t a moral issue no matter how much people try to make it out to be. Abortion, the war in Iraq, Healthcare, now there are some important moral issues. I can see protesting and lecturing about these issues. But not a dock. Some people would like a dock in the park and some people don’t. It is simply two different opinions. That’s allowed in this country. There were very few of us pro dock people who spoke at the City Council meetings over the past few weeks. Not because we didn’t want to be heard but because the response from the anti dock people (not all of them) was so emotional and dramatic and angry that I didn’t want to insight them. There is no reason I had to explain myself or justify my position because I would like a dock in riverside park!

That’s right Karen, you are not a bad person and the fact that those opposed to it have tried to paint the “newcomers” vs “old timers” reminds of the Hatfields and McCoys. Don’t let them intimidate you because that is all they have is the art of intimidation. They believe it is their park, their stockade, their riverfront, and all your newbies don’t deserve it. It is pathetic.

>Earlier on your blog someone stated “Stockaders are appearing more like snobs than good neighbors and that’s too bad”. That is the real downside to all this drama. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Thanks for your continued effort.
Karen

It appears that the land in question was part of the original Riverside Park on the Randall Map. Riverside Park was approved on December 11, 1913 and was purchased in piecemeal fashion until December 28, 1914 when the city officially accepted the name Riverside Park by resolution. . . . . . .

Riverside Park is valued as a unique component of the Stockade Historic District offering residents and visitors a relatively tranquil place to enjoy a magnificent view of the Mohawk River from the walking path and park benches. A narrow strip of land of about 1/3 mile long, it is accessible from five narrow residential streets, including Ingersoll. Currently there are tennis courts; basketball court, volleyball and a small, children’s play area. The Park is subject to periodic Mohawk River flooding and therefore requires special maintenance.

FACT: These were your own words about Riverside Park back in 2007. Interesting that you are now singing a different tune when it involves your boat and your ego. Which time were you speaking the truth? FACT: During the time when the actual Stockade was in existence, before all the development occurred, what is now Riverside Park was pastureland. The park most closely approximates what that strip of land originally was. If, as you claim, you have done all the research and possess all the knowledge, you know this is true. Why then have you chosen to overlook that? I suggest it is because it doesn’t support your current agenda.

FACT: Because you don’t live here it leaves you exposed to certain flaws in your logic about the levels of crime in this neighborhood. Check your facts. The police get calls routinely from the residents of the Stockade.

>It appears that the land in question was part of the original Riverside Park on the Randall Map. Riverside Park was approved on December 11, 1913 and was purchased in piecemeal fashion until December 28, 1914 when the city officially accepted the name Riverside Park by resolution. . . . . . .

Riverside Park is valued as a unique component of the Stockade Historic District offering residents and visitors a relatively tranquil place to enjoy a magnificent view of the Mohawk River from the walking path and park benches. A narrow strip of land of about 1/3 mile long, it is accessible from five narrow residential streets, including Ingersoll. Currently there are tennis courts; basketball court, volleyball and a small, children’s play area. The Park is subject to periodic Mohawk River flooding and therefore requires special maintenance.

FACT: These were your own words about Riverside Park back in 2007. Interesting that you are now singing a different tune when it involves your boat and your ego. Which time were you speaking the truth?

You should learn how to read and interpret. There is nothing wrong with that statement. This is how Stockade residents view the park. This is what was told me by the residents that I interviewed for the report. I only reported the FACTS. An archeological study does not put in the investigator’s bias. You are grabbing at straws.

> FACT: During the time when the actual Stockade was in existence, before all the development occurred, what is now Riverside Park was pastureland. The park most closely approximates what that strip of land originally was. If, as you claim, you have done all the research and possess all the knowledge, you know this is true. Why then have you chosen to overlook that? I suggest it is because it doesn’t support your current agenda.

Wrong – again. The shoreline of your park was about 10 feet further out the river. I don’t have any agenda and that is what people who cannot debate an issue intelligently come up with. Agendas, collusion with government officials, give me a break. You know nothing of my “agenda” as you claim. Stop showing your ignorance.

>FACT: Because you don’t live here it leaves you exposed to certain flaws in your logic about the levels of crime in this neighborhood. Check your facts. The police get calls routinely from the residents of the Stockade.

>Bastardizing the truth for your own selfish ends does not change it.

Ho hum. I would like to know how you all know there is so much crime going on down there without being there? Do you have magic glasses? Are you in the park at night when it is going on? Show me the arrest records that are more than any other part of the city. How can you stand living in an area that is so crime infested. Maybe you should move out to a safer neighborhood.

I notice you have chosen not to refute the facts that the park was once pastureland and that you defended maintaining the park and it’s “magnificent view of the Mohawk” in 2007. The same view you now decry as frought with views of powerlines, railroad tracks and bridges. You called the park “a relatively tranquil place”, yet now you argue against your own point. How do you reconcile your inconsistent views of the park comfortably? The hypocrisy is glaring.

You would see if you bothered to check your facts that I have filed multiple reports with the police regarding persons doing drugs at the end of Washington Ave., attempted break-ins at neighbors homes, vandalism of my family members’ cars, etc. How about all the police reports that were filed by residents of the Stockade who had their copper gutters stolen right off their homes in broad daylight? How about the home owners whose properties abut the park who had their walls defaced a couple summers ago? They didn’t see it happen, so according to you, it wasn’t a crime? The police reports were filed. Check it out. Do you claim that these reports were falsified? The used syringes, crack pipes and other drug paraphenalia I pick up in the park as I walk there daily are evidence enough for me that there are criminal acts taking place in the park. Could you possibly be limited enough in your thinking to propose the argument that something is not a crime because no one saw it happen or filed a police report on it?

If I follow your argument, the Stockade is no less safe than any other neighborhood in Schenectady, so what would be the point of moving? Perhaps you should re-evaluate your reasoning on that thought.

Personally, I don’t really care if the Onrust gets vandalized any more than you care if my boat gets vandalized where it sits along the river. It’s at risk of that no matter where you park it. You asked that people just say that they do or don’t want the dock. I don’t want it. At least I am honest.

Don, You may be starting to notice that the arguments people are using to prove their point can be used in both support or opposition. Here they are:
The stockade is a dangerous, dirty mess. (The dock will clean it up, the dock will make it worse)
The stockade is a beautiful neighborhood.(The dock will ruin it, the dock will show it off.)
Riverside park is a dangerous, dirty mess. (The dock will make it worse, the dock will clean it up.)
Riverside park is a tranquil, beautiful space. (The dock will ruin it, the dock will show it off).

The fact is whether you are for or against the dock you only have your opinions to hang your hat on. There is no proof that the dock will save or ruin the stockade or the park, just speculation and assumptions. Many of the people who are opposed are much more inflamed over the dock than those who are for it and seem to be generally upset with the notion that the park and the stockade are considered nice places (with exceptions I noted above). Forget about the dock, this fight (at least as witnessed in emails, the blog and the meeting)seems more about proving someone else is wrong about the neighborhood and park, or that supporters have some hidden agenda that no one knows about. They just can’t accept that someone holds the opinion, for whatever reason, that a dock might just be a good thing to help the park.

Usually the simplest explanations are the correct ones. But I guess its much more fun to try uncover a conspiracy. Now, how about opening your Onrust casino corporation to some of us interested investors Don.
(oops should I not have revealed that publicly?)

Hi Don;
Sorry I don’t know how to insert other posts; but I will address your commentary:

It will take much more than a simple grant to perform the upgrades to the courts(neither of which i use or intend to do so). Do you truly envision a timely move to the Armory building?(some thing I advocated for 10 yrs ago & was promptly ignored). I’d also like to walk that river to Armory trip w/you. a few minutes stretch & crossing State Street can be it’s own adventure. Then we can compare notes on the upkeep of the sidewalks, streets, homes, trees & businesses.

Again, please visit us concerning the parking issue. Every building(save 1 in which the owner moved to the carriage house, a separate building that has ample off street parking)is owner occupied. There are 5 renters, 2 of which do not drive; 2 of the homes are occupied by owners who don’t drive. That blows that out of the water; @ least on my street(where the dock is intended). The fact that all of the major apartment complexes have ample parking, cuts down on congestion as well. The latest trend in the Stockade is converting 2 family units into 1 family homes(2 on North & more on Front). Does this fit into your break up the old homes theory? If the people responsible for the largely unused lots in the Stockade (4 are church lots, 3 are restaurant/bars) are unwilling to allow residents to park, what makes you think that “visitors” would get higher consideration? How often do you see traffic or parking laws enforced in our jewel? A full salary for 1 officer could be paid w/out having to leave the Stockade.

I understand that the city considers the sidewalk to be the responsibility of the homeowner, what a crock! I pay taxes for maintained roads, trees & services(among other oft-ignored public services paid for @ a dear price). If tree roots destroy my sidewalk, who replaces it? Are there standards that are followed or enforced? Who has the authority to enforce & to what degree? I can’t use that property for my own purposes, but I am required to maintain it. If someone falls on the sidewalk, in front of my home,am I responsible? I am required to clear during a snow(which i have done w/out fail), but the city doesn’t plow. Still people take to the streets as if they have a license plate on their butt, refusing to realize that falling on the sidewalk can cause bruises & breaks, whereas a slip in the streets can cause death(not to mention jaywalking, which is as far from the Schenectady conscience as the 60’s GE workforce)! regardless of this, North St. is so narrow that 2 of my vehicles in succession have been abused, by the city, police dept, garbage collectors, neighbors & those visiting to the tune of $5k in repair estimates. I take great care to park rite up to that expensive curb, unlike those privileged few who think that 18″ is an appropriate distance.

The city has been “looking into”, the development of every street, building, overpass & tree in town for years. There have been more unused plans & projects proposed than you can shake a stick at. take a look in the reams of documents in the attic at city hall. The solution most often used is: seize it,tear it down to shovel ready, give it to a “friend” for next to nothing, forgive future taxes & expect something to happen.

Don’t even start on the police in town, that;s the subject of a book, sorry Chief. The responsibility of self has gone out the window. Is it a crime if the police don’t witness it personally? Obviously not in Schenectady. Not even photographs are enough. Did you know that you can urinate against a building on Jay St & not be arrested for indecent exposure(or anything else for that matter). This is 1/2 block from City Hall in the middle of the day, do you truly think that it will improve in the dark of night?

Your final comment is a pure endorsement for what i disparaged.
“the dock is free a good portion of it anyway” is the material to be magically deposited on the banks of the Mohawk? How can a boat(admittedly a wonderful accomplishment), possibly be considered a “match of funds”? These wonderful grants of which you so often refer are the very problem. It’s not free money. somebody pays for it. For every dollar spent, it comes from another service. Everyone screams for fiscal reform, right up until the time comes to tighten the belt. Our City/County/State refuse to wake up & smell the DEFICIT! Just because you can spend it. doesn’t mean you have to.

If people want to develop the Stockade, I’m all for it. I can’t wait to walk to a store to buy groceries. Small shops would be nice. My own home was once a sausage shop. What do you think the chances of reusing it for it’s one time purpose? Slim to none. Fine dining overlooking the river would be lovely, but we’re back to :how do they get there. Maybe a valet service could be paid for by the city, so clients can visit the Stockade in it’s native habitat, so as to save illegal parking & congestion. As long as people continue to delude themselves that the Stockade is on par w/Old Alexandria, Old Town Santa Fe, the Vieux Carre & other historically preserved destinations, progress will be slow. The identity as “The City that Hauls& Lights the World” has been buried for over 20 years (that’s being kind). A new identity is needed before you can tout it. Basic infrastructure is ignored, but we can have a 300′ dock.

Casting the net of “snobbery”(especially restricted to the Stockade) smacks of sensationalism. “Pathetic” is an awful broad brush to paint with. The neighbors here are no more obstinate than any other Schenectady neighborhood. I invite you & Karen to come on over to North St. It’s a microcosm of the Stockade, residents from mid 20’s – mid 80’s. Some have been in the same home for over 50 yrs, some bought last year. Even the few renters are extremely stable(including 1 former neighborhood homeowner & 1 who bought their rental). Having been here raising my kids for 11 years, i don’t fit into the newbie category & some certainly know I’m not an old timer. We are a fairly close group, watering plants, picking up mail, sitting pets, assisting in gardening, & looking out for everyone’s welfare. While there are some,in the neighborhood as a whole, who are trying to hold on, the face is changing. Those who worked hard & long to get the Stockade recognized for what it is, may be feeling under-appreciated, & resentful, as they see there vision being co-opted. Wanting a dock doesn’t make anyone a bad person, saying that the issue “shows a divided community” ,does tend to make you disingenuous, if not down right revisionist; when the only polling was 2-1 against.(A quote from our illustrious City Council president who is not a Stockade resident.)

At the very least it is being discussed(even if occasionally uncivil) rather than being force fed the project as the norm.

Don, please call me if you want to discuss it further(or anything else). I find this type of communication to be tedious,(my own issue)

Ho hum. Your argument that all of us who live in the Stockade are stupid and ignorant is tedious. Plausible deniability about the staements you have published doesn’t cut it either. If that’s the best you can do, than I am engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

If you have no agenda, then why are you involving yourself in this issue at all? Let those of us who live in the Stockade work it out amongst ourselves.

You claim you would be saving us $150,000. There would be no need to save that money if there was no dock to begin with. I have spoken with the manager of The Water’s Edge Lighthouse restaurant. He said you have approached them about berthing the Onrust at their dock again this year. I asked him if there had been any incidents of vandalism to it when you had it there last summer. He said he didn’t know of any and added that the fact that there are cameras all around the building probably helped. Please feel free to take them up on their offer to berth the Onrust there again this year. That you would attempt to threaen us with “I’ll take the boat to Kingston” is lame. Go ahead. Our lives will not be significantly impacted.

“The Stockade is a unique and rare area that has maintained it’s sense of place and the original spirit of it’s founding fathers. We are fortunate to have so many of it’s residents champion the cause to keep it that way.” Don Rittner 2008 – or is that what the residents told you to say?

>Ho hum. Your argument that all of us who live in the Stockade are stupid and ignorant is tedious. Plausible deniability about the staements you have published doesn’t cut it either. If that’s the best you can do, than I am engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

If you have no agenda, then why are you involving yourself in this issue at all? Let those of us who live in the Stockade work it out amongst ourselves.

You folks brought me into this not I. Get your facts correct although you seem to have a hard time doing that.

>You claim you would be saving us $150,000. There would be no need to save that money if there was no dock to begin with. I have spoken with the manager of The Water’s Edge Lighthouse restaurant. He said you have approached them about berthing the Onrust at their dock again this year. I asked him if there had been any incidents of vandalism to it when you had it there last summer. He said he didn’t know of any and added that the fact that there are cameras all around the building probably helped. Please feel free to take them up on their offer to berth the Onrust there again this year. That you would attempt to threaen us with “I’ll take the boat to Kingston” is lame. Go ahead. Our lives will not be significantly impacted.

Again, since you seem to lack any real knowledge of the subject let me try to educate you again, albeit it seems impossible. The dock project is NOT my project. It is the CITY’s. By allowing the use of the Onrust at the CITY dock, the city can use this as a match for THEIR grant. By doing that the CITY SAVES the cost of what they would have to put into the project. So AGAIN in case you did not understand it the first time. This DOC PROJECT is the CITY’s not mine. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!! I am really getting tired of your ignorance. I do not have to defend myself against people who don’t know what they are talking about.

I could care less if the Onrust is docked in your little park. It is the CITY’S DECISION to build a dock there not mine. Do you get it now. Take it up with the city.

>”The Stockade is a unique and rare area that has maintained it’s sense of place and the original spirit of it’s founding fathers. We are fortunate to have so many of it’s residents champion the cause to keep it that way.” Don Rittner 2008 – or is that what the residents told you to say?

When did I ever say I did not like the Stockade or it was not a unique??? What is wrong with you. Are you really that dense? Hello, are you from Earth? I have been a champion of the Stockade for 40 years. AND that statement you quote has nothing to do with the park? You really are grabbing at straws. Please go back and debate to whoever you were bothering before me. This is getting boring now. You have offered nothing constructive in this debate over a dock. And you are debating the wrong person anyway. Go yell at the city.

Hi Don;
>Sorry I don’t know how to insert other posts; but I will address your commentary:

It will take much more than a simple grant to perform the upgrades to the courts(neither of which i use or intend to do so). Do you truly envision a timely move to the Armory building?(some thing I advocated for 10 yrs ago & was promptly ignored). I’d also like to walk that river to Armory trip w/you. a few minutes stretch & crossing State Street can be it’s own adventure. Then we can compare notes on the upkeep of the sidewalks, streets, homes, trees & businesses.

Andre, I do believe the city could get some grants or perhaps use CDBG money to upgrade the courts, etc. I think KABOOM might look to it as a favorable project too. The point is unless someone tries we will never know. Yeah, let’s take a walk to the armory. I would like that. I’m doing a survey of the whole Stockade right now anyway, would enjoy the company. Since the city is going to now concentrate their efforts to lower State, the citizens of the Stockade could put in their two cents and ask that walkways along State be considered in the overall plan. I know they want to take the little park down there and straighten it out and make it bigger by closing off Water Street. I think this is a good idea. That would cut off traffic going that way though it might dump more on State. They really need to do something bout the traffic conditions there. Why not add a cross over like the college did between the science building (old WRGB) and the main campus. Maybe they can cut off completely the Erie to Washington Ave on the school side to State. There is that turnaround down there and I think they could reroute that Railroad is two way so I don’t really see the need to dump that on Washington especially if they are going to abandon Water Street anyway.

>Again, please visit us concerning the parking issue. Every building(save 1 in which the owner moved to the carriage house, a separate building that has ample off street parking)is owner occupied. There are 5 renters, 2 of which do not drive; 2 of the homes are occupied by owners who don’t drive. That blows that out of the water; @ least on my street(where the dock is intended). The fact that all of the major apartment complexes have ample parking, cuts down on congestion as well. The latest trend in the Stockade is converting 2 family units into 1 family homes(2 on North & more on Front). Does this fit into your break up the old homes theory? If the people responsible for the largely unused lots in the Stockade (4 are church lots, 3 are restaurant/bars) are unwilling to allow residents to park, what makes you think that “visitors” would get higher consideration? How often do you see traffic or parking laws enforced in our jewel? A full salary for 1 officer could be paid w/out having to leave the Stockade.

Yes the parking problem is a nightmare there. The dock is going there? Really I did not know that. I thought it was going closer to Ferry Street? You know more about it than I do. The city has an ordinance in effect that is suppose to stop people from further breaking homes into apartments. I do not know if that is enforced though. Perhaps Stockaders can look into this. I also thought it might be a good idea to close off the original Stockade to traffic except for those that live there. This would make it more pedestrian friendly. Say from Ferry and Union, Green to North. North and Front to Washington, and Washington to State. Those that lived in these areas could have a permit, and a visitors permit. This would make it a lot easier for people to walk around and see the beauty of the Stockade, but I bet, would put money in the bank, that the same people who are against the dock would be against this too – afterall it would bring in STRANGERS. Is there a neighborhood watch in the Stockade? If there is do they do anything? Seems to me if there was a NW and they patrolled the park with radios there wouldn’t be any problem. Of course people like to complain, hell if they would have to actually do something.

>I understand that the city considers the sidewalk to be the responsibility of the homeowner, what a crock! I pay taxes for maintained roads, trees & services(among other oft-ignored public services paid for @ a dear price). If tree roots destroy my sidewalk, who replaces it? Are there standards that are followed or enforced? Who has the authority to enforce & to what degree? I can’t use that property for my own purposes, but I am required to maintain it. If someone falls on the sidewalk, in front of my home,am I responsible? I am required to clear during a snow(which i have done w/out fail), but the city doesn’t plow. Still people take to the streets as if they have a license plate on their butt, refusing to realize that falling on the sidewalk can cause bruises & breaks, whereas a slip in the streets can cause death(not to mention jaywalking, which is as far from the Schenectady conscience as the 60’s GE workforce)! regardless of this, North St. is so narrow that 2 of my vehicles in succession have been abused, by the city, police dept, garbage collectors, neighbors & those visiting to the tune of $5k in repair estimates. I take great care to park rite up to that expensive curb, unlike those privileged few who think that 18″ is an appropriate distance.

Andre, it is that way in every city. Doesn’t make it fair but that seems to be the way it is, unless of course the city decides to do the whole block like they did at Ferry, and by the way I am not happy about that. Would love to have seen the native cobblestone street exposed. When North Street was created it wasn’t meant to be a street lined with large houses and SUVs. It was a small 18th century street with small lots and gardens. I’m sure the Dutch and English settlers were not thinking of how the area would be 300 years later.

>The city has been “looking into”, the development of every street, building, overpass & tree in town for years. There have been more unused plans & projects proposed than you can shake a stick at. take a look in the reams of documents in the attic at city hall. The solution most often used is: seize it,tear it down to shovel ready, give it to a “friend” for next to nothing, forgive future taxes & expect something to happen.

Again I can show you the same pile in Albany, Troy, etc. Plans come and go. I often think they are just ways to spend money.

>Don’t even start on the police in town, that;s the subject of a book, sorry Chief. The responsibility of self has gone out the window. Is it a crime if the police don’t witness it personally? Obviously not in Schenectady. Not even photographs are enough. Did you know that you can urinate against a building on Jay St & not be arrested for indecent exposure(or anything else for that matter). This is 1/2 block from City Hall in the middle of the day, do you truly think that it will improve in the dark of night?

I remember sitting in my car in the Van Dyke parking lot last year. I saw a guy go into a car in Clinton’s Ditch. I called the cops from my cell phone. The guy spent at least five minutes grabbing what he could. I even honked my horn, didn’t bother him, then he started walking. Cops showed up about 10 minutes later. The police issue in the Stockade is the same as it is in the entire city and I have no solution for that. Far beyond my knowledge bank.

>Your final comment is a pure endorsement for what i disparaged.
“the dock is free a good portion of it anyway” is the material to be magically deposited on the banks of the Mohawk? How can a boat(admittedly a wonderful accomplishment), possibly be considered a “match of funds”? These wonderful grants of which you so often refer are the very problem. It’s not free money. somebody pays for it. For every dollar spent, it comes from another service. Everyone screams for fiscal reform, right up until the time comes to tighten the belt. Our City/County/State refuse to wake up & smell the DEFICIT! Just because you can spend it. doesn’t mean you have to.

Most foundations in the country consider a project that has been done by volunteer labor as a match. While the volunteers were not paid – they volunteered their time- if you had paid them it would have cost over $400,000 dollars. That still is equity and most foundations when you apply for a grant take that in consideration when giving a grant. It IS free money. If it comes from a private foundation it is theirs to choose who to give money to and that is why most people try to get foundation grants and the majority of non profits survive that way. Grants from the State are either in the form of money from the State or federal money and in that comes from taxes paid by all of us. However the bottom line is if I have a choice for my tax money to build a dock or a bomb, I am inclined to go for the dock.

>If people want to develop the Stockade, I’m all for it. I can’t wait to walk to a store to buy groceries. Small shops would be nice. My own home was once a sausage shop. What do you think the chances of reusing it for it’s one time purpose? Slim to none. Fine dining overlooking the river would be lovely, but we’re back to :how do they get there. Maybe a valet service could be paid for by the city, so clients can visit the Stockade in it’s native habitat, so as to save illegal parking & congestion. As long as people continue to delude themselves that the Stockade is on par w/Old Alexandria, Old Town Santa Fe, the Vieux Carre & other historically preserved destinations, progress will be slow. The identity as “The City that Hauls& Lights the World” has been buried for over 20 years (that’s being kind). A new identity is needed before you can tout it. Basic infrastructure is ignored, but we can have a 300′ dock.

Well yes all of that can be brought to fruition. All of those places you pointed out were in the same condition as the Stockade before they decided to change it. There is nothing that cannot be done if you plan it well.

>Casting the net of “snobbery”(especially restricted to the Stockade) smacks of sensationalism. “Pathetic” is an awful broad brush to paint with. The neighbors here are no more obstinate than any other Schenectady neighborhood. I invite you & Karen to come on over to North St. It’s a microcosm of the Stockade, residents from mid 20’s – mid 80’s. Some have been in the same home for over 50 yrs, some bought last year. Even the few renters are extremely stable(including 1 former neighborhood homeowner & 1 who bought their rental). Having been here raising my kids for 11 years, i don’t fit into the newbie category & some certainly know I’m not an old timer. We are a fairly close group, watering plants, picking up mail, sitting pets, assisting in gardening, & looking out for everyone’s welfare. While there are some,in the neighborhood as a whole, who are trying to hold on, the face is changing. Those who worked hard & long to get the Stockade recognized for what it is, may be feeling under-appreciated, & resentful, as they see there vision being co-opted. Wanting a dock doesn’t make anyone a bad person, saying that the issue “shows a divided community” ,does tend to make you disingenuous, if not down right revisionist; when the only polling was 2-1 against.(A quote from our illustrious City Council president who is not a Stockade resident.)

Andre, the email I have received has been derogatory, insulting, and in some cases slanderous. I take it all with a grain of salt, but dish it right back. There is an intelligent way to debate an issue and then there is the other. Those that have been against the dock and have written to me have been in the pathetic category for the most part. I have been accused of having agendas, in collusion with the government, and a host of other things and it isn’t even MY project. It is the city’s. So my reference to pathetic is directed at them not you or other people who have been in opposition to the dock and can argue their point with civility. This is NOT my project, it is the CITY’s. I don’t care if the Onrust is there or not. Whether a dock is there or not is up to the city not me. They don’t seem to be able to understand that it is not my project.

>At the very least it is being discussed(even if occasionally uncivil) rather than being force fed the project as the norm.

Andre, that is a great point and this discussion with you and I proves that it can be civil. It is sad that the others think they have to try and make you out a monster.

>Don, please call me if you want to discuss it further(or anything else). I find this type of communication to be tedious,(my own issue)

Bob, you point it out well. All of this attempt to make supporters of the dock as evil jetti knights ruins their argument. All they need to say is they are against it. It’s ok to be against it and it is ok to be for it. Simply enough.

Don, You may be starting to notice that the arguments people are using to prove their point can be used in both support or opposition. Here they are:
The stockade is a dangerous, dirty mess. (The dock will clean it up, the dock will make it worse)
The stockade is a beautiful neighborhood.(The dock will ruin it, the dock will show it off.)
Riverside park is a dangerous, dirty mess. (The dock will make it worse, the dock will clean it up.)
Riverside park is a tranquil, beautiful space. (The dock will ruin it, the dock will show it off).

The fact is whether you are for or against the dock you only have your opinions to hang your hat on. There is no proof that the dock will save or ruin the stockade or the park, just speculation and assumptions. Many of the people who are opposed are much more inflamed over the dock than those who are for it and seem to be generally upset with the notion that the park and the stockade are considered nice places (with exceptions I noted above). Forget about the dock, this fight (at least as witnessed in emails, the blog and the meeting)seems more about proving someone else is wrong about the neighborhood and park, or that supporters have some hidden agenda that no one knows about. They just can’t accept that someone holds the opinion, for whatever reason, that a dock might just be a good thing to help the park.

Usually the simplest explanations are the correct ones. But I guess its much more fun to try uncover a conspiracy. Now, how about opening your Onrust casino corporation to some of us interested investors Don.
(oops should I not have revealed that publicly?)

>I notice you have chosen not to refute the facts that the park was once pastureland and that you defended maintaining the park and it’s “magnificent view of the Mohawk” in 2007. The same view you now decry as frought with views of powerlines, railroad tracks and bridges. You called the park “a relatively tranquil place”, yet now you argue against your own point. How do you reconcile your inconsistent views of the park comfortably? The hypocrisy is glaring.

You’re a glutton for punishment aren’t you. Ok, here ya go. What part of WRONG don’t you understand? Your park was – before the massacre – maintained as flat land for defensive purposes. It was kept free of vegetation so sentry’s could see if the enemy were coming. After the massacre, the land was kept flat for the same reason as before, PLUS the addition of a large brewery and defensive positions placed along the riverfront. During the late 18th and 19th century it was lined with warehouses, homes, businesses, boat makers, and ice houses. To the south past the old bridge the lands were fields of broom corn for the broom makers in the city. During the first half of the 20th century it continued to have buildings, etc. on it. So where is your information that it was pastureland? I have studied this area for 40 years. If you want to pretend you know more about the history than I do, keep making inaccurate statements. I don’t mind letting my readers enjoy them.

In regards to the other statement. Let me try it again, although I really am getting tired of this. When you conduct an archeological investigation you look at an area in an unbiased fashion. You do your research and you talk to people who live in the area that is being affected. In this case, Ingersoll Ave (which by the way did NOT exist before 1900) and I interviewed people that lived here. THEY told me the area was a great place to live, a relatively tranquil place, etc. etc. This is what I reported. I did NOT enter my own personal feelings into this report. It is a scientific report. You try to keep you own bias out of it, which I attempted to do. OTHERWISE if I had entered my own personal opinion, I would have stated it thusly:

“Riverside Park is a small sliver of land on the western part of the Stockade that is underutilized and could well be redeveloped into its former glory as a place for all citizens to enjoy the Mohawk River with docks, marinas, river side eating establishments, bike and walk ways along the river, toilet facilities, and educational kiosk explaining the nearly four centuries of history.”

>You would see if you bothered to check your facts that I have filed multiple reports with the police regarding persons doing drugs at the end of Washington Ave., attempted break-ins at neighbors homes, vandalism of my family members’ cars, etc. How about all the police reports that were filed by residents of the Stockade who had their copper gutters stolen right off their homes in broad daylight? How about the home owners whose properties abut the park who had their walls defaced a couple summers ago? They didn’t see it happen, so according to you, it wasn’t a crime? The police reports were filed. Check it out. Do you claim that these reports were falsified? The used syringes, crack pipes and other drug paraphenalia I pick up in the park as I walk there daily are evidence enough for me that there are criminal acts taking place in the park. Could you possibly be limited enough in your thinking to propose the argument that something is not a crime because no one saw it happen or filed a police report on it?

Why would I? I don’t know you from a hole in the head. What does all this have to do with a dock? What does copper flashing, car break ins, and doing drugs have to do with a dock? The last I looked there was no copper flashing or cars allowed in the park? You have your priorities twisted. Blaming a proposed dock on the ills of society and in particular crimes – the same kind – of which occur throughout the city give no credence to your argument. In fact it supports the opposite. if MORE people used the park day and night there would less chance of this stuff happening.

>If I follow your argument, the Stockade is no less safe than any other neighborhood in Schenectady, so what would be the point of moving? Perhaps you should re-evaluate your reasoning on that thought.

Boy did you miss the point.

>Personally, I don’t really care if the Onrust gets vandalized any more than you care if my boat gets vandalized where it sits along the river. It’s at risk of that no matter where you park it. You asked that people just say that they do or don’t want the dock. I don’t want it. At least I am honest.

See that’s all you had to do in the first place. Don’t you feel better now?